Sessoms 1

Robert Sessoms

Professor Doran

ENC 2135

3/1/17

GMOs? I Say No!

Despite providing nations the ability to grow crops in futile regions,

stricter legislature and further analysis on genetically modified organisms

(GMOs) need to be performed in the marketplace. The issues that arise from

GMOs are from the unpredictability in each crop, the effect on humans, the

environment, and how it negatively affects biodiversity in the environment

(Non-GMO Project). Genetically engineered (GE) genes help cure specific

diseases in the medical industry, but when introduced in the food industry,

that is when the use of genetically engineered products come into question.

Corporations and scientists both present the idea that genetically modified

organisms are needed for society to keep progressing from the rapid

increase in population growth. Mega-corporations lobby against the idea of

labeling the food that comes from the genetically modified organisms.

Capital gain in the eyes of corporations leads to a heavy opposition to pass

laws that would regulate the flow of genetically modified organisms in the

market (Francis, Craig, & George, 2016). Genetically modified (GM)

substances provide a sustainable resource for futile countries without the

proper climate for certain foods, but the hidden dangers of GMOs far

outweigh the positives.

 Sessoms 2

The uncertainty of breeding GMOs is that each gene is dynamic

(Schmidt 2005). Genes are dynamic because they are not stable substances,

each gene has its own characteristics. These dynamic genes do not have the

ability to produce an exact replicate in every gene transfer, the desired

gene is identified [does not always comes the certain way] in the native

organism's genome, it can be cut out, transferred to the target plant.

(University of Utah 2015). The inability to absolutely know that these genes

are safe for consumption is the question surrounding GMOs. These unstable

genes can cause the consumers to obtain allergies to different types of

foods. To confirm that a transgenic protein is or is not an allergen is to test it

in large numbers of people. But of course, large-scale human testing isn't

practical. (Schmidt 2005). Without multiple tests and examination of a large

group no one really knows if genetically engineered food will cause allergic

reactions in different people. The unpredictability of genes is what makes

genetically modified food so dangerous for consumption. If we do not know

the inherent long-term side effects towards consumers that eat GM food how

can we continue to not research about them?

Breeding produces the opportunity for countries with increasing

population and high poverty rates to be provided nutritious foods for lower

prices. According to Freedman's research, genetically modified organisms

indisputably help "produce higher yields, grow in dry and salty land,

withstand high and low temperatures, and tolerate insects, disease and

herbicides." (2013). Genetically modified organisms do provide countries

 Sessoms 3

with nutritious crops and stable crop yields. The question that is not being

asked in the discussion of genetically modified organisms is Is it worth it to

keep pushing GMOs to support countries without knowing if the population

will not become allergic to the food and become ill? The production of how

the food is being processed in futile climates can hurt the population

consuming the good. Research needs to be done towards GMOs, before it

can be certain no effect will hurt different regions internationally. The first

step that needs to be made in the genetically engineered battle is making

regulation and laws to have labeling of GMO foods in the marketplace.

The major controversy in genetically modified food in stores is the

topic of labeling the genetically modified food. The biggest opposition seems

to be biotechnology companies that do not support the idea of labeling

genetically modified products (Wohlers 2013). According to Wohlers's study,

genetically modified organisms dominate most of the produce in North

America, 60 to 80 percent of processed foods in a typical American grocery

store contain GMO (2013). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

seem to set the precedent for not creating any laws or regulations regarding

genetically modified organisms. According to Gostins study, the public has a

desire to know about their food 93% of respondents approved of GMO food

labeling (2016). The public has a right to know what they are consuming,

where the food comes from, and get a first-hand perspective on everything

that occurs while producing genetically modified food. The little to no

intervention from the FDA in genetically modified food allows major

 Sessoms 4

corporations to produce food that could possibly be harmful to consumers.

The European Union (EU) unlike the U.S. has created strict laws as the

genetically modified food movement has accelerated in the last decade to

protect consumers health with the unknown side effects of GMOs (Wohlers

2013). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has all the ability to establish

stricter laws in the marketplace. The FDA has not adapted legislature on

GMOs since 1992, the federal food safety regulations failed to cope with the

growing sophistication of biotechnology. (Ghoshray 2015). The lack of

interest from the FDA to set stringent laws on genetically modified food

makes the public begin to wonder why. Does corporate money run the food

market in lobbying the government not to change the agricultural trend of

the US and not to implement stricter laws? Companies do not even have the

confidence to let consumers know what they are buying. This has a lot to say

about how GMOs should be labeled and regulated from the minimal amount

of effort shown by companies to ensure the safety of the products they grow.

The insufficient measures taken from the FDA has made the public question

if the FDA has their hands in corporate money instead of being concerned

with consumers health and livelihood.

Every law and legislature that is passed dealing with agriculture and

food comes from the jurisdiction of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or

U.S. Department of Agriculture. The absence of any government intervention

in the genetically modified food market is puzzling. The minimal mediation in

the food market is characterized by "corporate lobbying that has compelled

 Sessoms 5

the FDA to continue to evade responsibility." (Ghoshray 223). The right for

the consumers to know what is in their food and if it will affect them

negatively is what the government agency should investigate. Corporate

lobbying from mega-corporations like Monsantos and other biotech

companies to influence the FDA and USDA is morally and ethically wrong.

The consumers suffer as a result in not knowing what they are paying for.

The FDA created the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) to oversee the

pesticides used on a crops, but neglect the environmental stress put on the

environment in just focusing on food. (Francis et al. 121). Leslie Francis,

Robin Kundis Craig, & Erika George describes the FDAs negligence towards

enforcing new legislature and labeling of genetically engineered food.

FDA is construing its authority over GM foods too narrowly, in

three respects. First, scientific scrutiny of these foods is not fully
transparent and appears rife with conflicts of interest, effectively
reversing the FDCAs requirement that manufacturers prove that
food additives are safe. Second, FDA largely omits risks created
in production processes from food safety analyses, despite
authority to do so granted under FSMA and despite increasing
consumer and scientific concern that at least some GM foods
pose such risks. Finally, FDA's limited construction of what makes
information "material" for food labeling purposes. (Francis et al.
133).

The FDA eludes from any responsibility to regulate the food market or

construct a way to label genetically modified food. The Federal Food, Drug,

and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) of 1938 legally binds companies to name the
 Sessoms 6

nutrient value and allergen used, but not how it is produced. (Francis et al.

122). Allergens are food that causes allergic reactions to consumers. These

allergens include peanut, tree nuts, milk, egg, and wheat to just name a few.

Instead of changing the landscape of GMOs, government agencies make

excuses for not changing laws that have been obsolete for decades. The FDA

and USDA do not even care about altering legislation to conform to the

recent surge of GMOs in the last decade. Their negligence has something to

be said about GMOs, first companies know their products are substandard,

and second understand their no backlash to providing the public with quality.

The government agencies should enforce the heavy legislation on companies

to stop making GMOs run dormant in the US. The lack of action by

government agencies has diminished farmers livelihood as well.

The socioeconomic problems that arise from genetically modified food

affect the future of the farmer in American society. The inability to compete

with mega-corporations that produce higher crop yields, the crops that have

greater immunity to insects, and they can survive in the worst conditions

makes it difficult for farmers to be in the same echelon as these corporations

that produce the crops for cheaper. Biotechnology companies use expensive

seeds that average farmers cannot afford, which is inevitably leading to the

death of the farmer in the US. The production yield of a farmer using non-

GMO seeds is far less than the costly GMO seed.

 Sessoms 7

Biotechnology companies that specialize in the genetically modified

seed set restrictive patents. Companies that make GMOs now have the

power to sue farmers whose fields are contaminated with GMOs, even when

it is the result of inevitable drift from neighboring fields. (Non-GMO Project

2015). The livelihood of the farmer is already heavily burdened by competing

with corporation producing crops, but also having to fear legal action from

companies. Genetically modified organism negatively affect the farmers to

succeed in agriculture if not wealthy enough to purchase GMO seeds. This

helps illustrate another reasons why GMOs are hurting society, rather than

helping it, and we need to change it, or limit it from the marketplace.

Genetically modified organisms do in fact produce higher crop yields,

drought resistance, and pest resistant plants. The underlying concern that

consumers in society have is the idea that genetically engineered food can

cause health risks. Lynn J. Frewer, in a research journal on GMO in the media,

describes how the public risk perception about GMOs increased from media

coverage. She states that "the impact on public perception of high levels of

media reporting [which creates more consumer opposition] regarding the

risks associated with genetically modified food" (701). The media coverage

of genetically modified food exemplifies consumers dissatisfaction for GMOs.

The media advocates for questions about what type of health risks are

associated with genetically engineered foods. According to some scientists,

genetically modified food is harmful because "toxin and enzymes permeate

the entire plant" (Anyadiegwu 213). These toxin and enzymes are produced
 Sessoms 8

naturally from the plant, but once these genes are transferred the toxin can

be altered in the newly placed gene (Anyadiegwu 213). If the plants, toxins,

and enzymes are rewired, it can create health problems in the consumers

from the dynamic nature of the gene. The danger of transferred genes is the

issue with remodifying the dormant gene and changing its characteristics

that could possibly harm humans. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration

and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have the ability to perform

different examinations of gene transfers. The FDA and USDA have full

discretion to direct companies in allowing the public to realize what they are

consuming. Lawrence O. Gostin, in an academic journal for Georgetown

University Law Center explains the recent emergence of most crops getting

genetically modified, " By 2012, GMO crops as a percentage of total crop

plantings were about 88% for corn, 94% for cotton, and 93% for soybeans.

Other GMO foods include tomatoes, potatoes, and squash." (2016). The

major crops in North America are genetically modified in some way. It is the

responsibility of the FDA and USDA to ensure that the majority of crops are

not going to give people health problems or allergies.

The environmental stress produced from genetically modified

organisms hurts the current habitat of the creatures that live there.

Monsantos is one of the biggest corporations that manufactures Ready

Roundup crops. Ready Roundup crops are immune to all different types of

weeds and insects, enhance the quality of the food product, and makes its

own natural herbicide. Genetically modified crops are also responsible for
 Sessoms 9

the emergence of herbicide resistant super weeds and super bugs, which

can only be killed with more toxic poisons like 2,4-D (Non- GMO Project

2015). These super weeds and insect effect the environment by changing the

biomes background and contaminating the soil (Wohlers 2013). Finally, the

idea of the environmental stress created by genetically modified organisms

display that there should be a limited use of GMOs.

Genetically modified organisms provides the nation with a reliable

source of food with the characteristics that will allow it to survive in any

conditions. The government agencies like FDA and USDA need to uphold the

right for the public to know what they consuming and should make it a

requirement to label specific GM foods. Interventions from the FDA and USDA

Sessoms 7

need to be implemented to make stricter laws for companies to abide to if

they want to sell their crops in the marketplace. Genetically modified food

has made great strides in the last decade, but it is the responsibility of the

government and companies to inform about how the food manufactured. To

further our knowledge of genes and how they operate, research needs to be

done to ensure the public that it is safe for consumption, and hopefully, one

day be a non- controversial subject.

Citations
 Sessoms 10

Frewer, Lynn J., et al. "The Media and Genetically Modified Foods: Evidence in
Support of Social Amplification of Risk." Risk Analysis: An International
Journal, vol. 22, Issue 4, 2002.

Schmidt, Charles W. Genetically Modified Foods: Breeding Uncertainty.

Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 113, no. 8, 2005, pp. A527A533.

Wohlers, Anton E. "Labeling Of Genetically Modified Food." Politics & The Life
Sciences, vol. 32, issue 1, 2013, pp. 73-84.

Dona, Artemis, and Ioannis S. Arvanitoyannis. "Health Risks of Genetically

Modified Foods." Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, pp. 164-75,
Print.

Gostin LO. Genetically Modified Food Labeling: A Right to Know? JAMA, vol.
316, issue 22, 2016.

Francis, Leslie; Craig, Robin Kundis; George, Erika. "FDA's Troubling Failures
to Use Its Authority to Regulate Genetically Modified Foods." Food and Drug
Law Journal, vol. 71.1, 2016, pp. 105-134.

Ghoshray, Saby. "Genetically Modified Foods at the Intersection of the

Regulatory Landscape and Constitutional Jurisprudence." American Journal of
Law and Medicine, vol. 41, no. 2, 2015, pp. 223-239

Genetically Modified Foods. University of Utah, 2013,

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/science/gmfoods.

Freedman, David H. The Truth about Genetically Modified Food. Scientific

American, 2013. GMO Facts. Non-GMO Project,
www.nongmoproject.org/gmo-facts/.